Talk:Decommission
Sas, I noticed the Reorginization... So... I was going to say "Gee Sas, I thought that we normally ordered by Registry number"... but then I noticed other articles which ordered ships alphabetically... So, now I'm really confused... Obviously you want them organized alphabetically... but though most of the publications (print) I've noticed ships are typically ordered by registry... in the real Navy this is also true... Erm... can I argue that ships in articles here should also be ordered by registry? I'd be okay if you didn't think that was a good idea, BTW... I just noticed it :D Aabh 01:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC) :I don't know how it is where you live, but in English our eyes read left to right, and the name is the first thing seen. Alphabetical order appears more orderly; going by registry (which typically comes after the name) just looks chaotic. It makes everything appear to be in a jumbled mess and one can't easily find the ship one may be looking for. 14:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC) ::(Snip) Regardless, this has nothing to do with any kind of assumption on my part, I am simply following a normal naval tradition, not a Japanese naval tradition (In case that is also somehow relevant...), but a United States Naval tradition, for example; http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=139 , and Cruisers are here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=800&ct=4 . You may notice the aforementioned "Chaotic" design followed by the US Navy on all of the ships' listings. All organized by the ships registration number, even though the registry is in the second position, following the ships' name. Franz Joseph also ordered ships by registry in the Star Fleet Technical Manual. If memory serves, I believe the Jackill books also list ships by registry, and most upper class historical and Star Trek websites also follow suit. Strangely enough, after all these years of ship names ordered by registry, I actually find the alphabetical listings to be completely incomprehensible. It looks random to me. (snip) Aabh 15:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC) (Takin' the snarkiness out! ---Aabh) :::Organising by registry is all fine and good as long as you have a organised and consistent system, which Trek does not have. Also you will (almost) always have a ships name but you don't necessarily get a registry along with the ship. Given this organising by ship name is the best system as it removes an ambiguity that arises from the lack of a registry. - 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC) ::::(Not qite so bristly now that I have slept a little)I have a rebuttal to your comment, Jrofeta but I suddenly realize this talk page probably isn't the best place to talk about Wiki-wide policy... When I made the Decommission page, I used some other page as a guideline, which means we are inconsistant here... unless, actually, that's what Sas was doing (Which would make sense), at which time I would only argue that though it is clearer to go alphabetically, it looks... erm... unprofessional? It looks unreal (And anyone who has delt with lists of ships, for whatever reason, be it having served in the military or having done genealogy, will find it disorganized and difficult to read). Anyway, I'll start something in the Hailing Frequencies... I disagree, but I'm willing to back down as long as the majority agree with you two :D. Aabh 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Would this look better if we organized the list of decommissioned ships by year? Put headers, "2272", "2273", etc. (just an example). That would put some space between them and make it visually easier to navigate. I'm thinking ahead, as ships get added to the list, and it gets longer and longer. 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC) :This idea is pretty sound... I think part of the problem I do have is that we have ships of Next Gen era before ships of Enterprise era... which "feels" to me like the Next Gen ships were decommissioned before the Enterprise ships... That's probably not a very good basis for an argument, though. We could just do it by "Era"; ENT, TOS, MOV, TNG... Though that sort of "breaks" the feel of "In Universe" that STEU has... Also, which date would you use? Commissioning or Decommissioning date? Aabh 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC) ::Since this article concerns decommissioning, I'd say by order of decommission date. Doing it by year doesn't break the in-universe theme; that would only happen if we went by series title. And, only add years as the ships decommissioned in that year get added. But this is just a thought. As an alternative, ships on this article could be listed by "registry (first) - name (second)", although I think readers' eyes would still gravitate towards the name of the ship. 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)